I'm honestly not that 'excited' about the league as I used to be. It's giving me a 'whoever is arsed enough to perform for the whole season' vibe. The CL however requires you to peak at the right moment and grind out results under huge pressure + you're battling with other European clubs which adds to the excitement.
CL vs Premier League | Which is more prestigious?
- Thread starter VorZakone
- Start date
Clearly the Champions League. It's always been the pinnacle.
CL for sure.
World Cup
.
.
European Cup
.
.
.
Champions League
.
.
Leagues of the Europa
Something like that.
I personally prefer Premier League very very much over Champions one.
.
.
European Cup
.
.
.
Champions League
.
.
Leagues of the Europa
Something like that.
I personally prefer Premier League very very much over Champions one.
CL is more prestigous hows that a question?
CL obivously
CL, by some distance.
Obviously CL but it can't be compared to winning the League. Give me one CL in five years and 4 PL titles in the same period and I'll be more than happy
Last edited by a moderator:
To us over here I think the EPl is far more important. Most people here don't care about the Cl. The league has always been the bread and butter and the cl was seen as the cherry on top. that has somewhat changed with the influx of Foreign ownership but League sis still priority. EPL has higher views than every other footballing competition on the planet and is the envy of every other top league.
Cl by far.
CL obviously
Is this even a question ? The Champions league obviously.
CL but feel more attachment to PL.
The CL is a glorified cup competition stratified at the top.
The PL over 38 games establishes with minimal doubt who the best is in the country.
I rank the PL above the CL. The CL is incomplete without an accompanying title. So feck off Chelsea, Liverpool, Milan, et al...
The PL over 38 games establishes with minimal doubt who the best is in the country.
I rank the PL above the CL. The CL is incomplete without an accompanying title. So feck off Chelsea, Liverpool, Milan, et al...
And the money has chased the prestige out the competition. Let's see how many people in here stick to their answers if one of City or PSG win it.
CL. It's a competition against the best club teams, and the world is watching.
It is arguable which one teams would like to win most though. It's a close one for me, the first PL after Fergie would be absolutely huge but United only having 3 CLs doesn't sit right with me.
It is arguable which one teams would like to win most though. It's a close one for me, the first PL after Fergie would be absolutely huge but United only having 3 CLs doesn't sit right with me.
Only on this forum can this be a debate.
CL, and it’s not even close.
CL, and it’s not even close.
CL but winning that without winning your domestic league demotes it beneath domestic league success, in my opinion. The right way to win it is by securing your own domestic title before you lift the cup. Without that it's hugely devalued and frankly means something entirely different.
You can't be 'Kings of Europe' if you're a domestic also-ran.
You can't be 'Kings of Europe' if you're a domestic also-ran.
CL without a doubt. I wouldn't mind finishing 20 points behind City if we won the CL. The pinnacle of club football.
The Champions League is more prestigious but if you are going to have one without the other then the league is usually a better indicator of quality. I personally wouldn't feel nearly as excited winning the CL in a season we didn't win the league as you couldn't realistically claim to be the best team in Europe. Like having the most incredible garnish without the main course.
I would find this subject more apt if we had a team that could win ether.
Is this even a serious question ? Does the PL matter one iota to those players not in it ?
CL if I've left any doubt about my stance.
CL if I've left any doubt about my stance.
More prestigeous? The CL of course.
But the league is a better barometer of quality and the PL is the competition I prefer to be honesty. It's absolutely not about the bolded bit. It's about who can perform consistently at the highest level. Peaking at the right time/performing under pressure is overrated at times. In the CL too you get a piss easy draw and coast your way to the finals.
Champions League obviously.
The reason you aren't interested in the league is because City won it in 19 games. Otherwise the premier league is really exciting.
Champions League. It is worth three PLs.
These are the same thing. The competition won by Portugal in 2016 is the "European Championship".
Premier league for me, and its not even close.
feck off United in 1968?
Yeah, that one.
No, because I'm biased, and we were the champions in the previous season.
Cl is the most prestigious trophy in club football by miles.
Considering they are both walking away with their leagues, I doubt it’d make much difference
The CL is more prestigious but the PL is more important.
You're correct, however some people will argue that their ability to "finance" their way to the CL title devalues it, as if the ability of only 4 mega teams to win it over the past 5 years doesn't devalue it already.
Would be great to win it, but I'd take a league almost every time.
CL is more prestigious, but the EPL is much more difficult.
The false notion that the CL is the true proving ground for players to see if they cut it at the "highest level" just seemed silly to me, because when you look at it realistically it is far from anywhere close to being a barometer for quality. In the EPL each and every season you know you will have to play Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, MU, and MC twice so those are 10 insanely difficult matches you have to play in if your on one of those teams. Where as in the CL, in the group stages you end up with 1 very good team and sometimes potentially a 2nd good team if you are in a Group of Death. So for the majority of the teams they end up having to to play 2 matches of real quality and the rest are 2nd tier matches. Once in the knockouts you again either end up with a very good team or another 2nd tier team and it goes like that until the SF's and Final. You simply don't compete regularly enough with top teams in the CL for it to be some sort of barometer.
In the best case scenario of a team facing very good teams in the CL from start to actually winning the CL it would be a maximum of 6 teams(2 in GS, 1 R16, 1 QF, 1 SF, 1 Final) in the worse case scenario it would be 2 teams(0 in GS, 0 R16, 0 QF, 1 SF, 1 Final) similarly to Monaco last season had they beaten Juventus. For the very large majority of teams bar the elite 3 to 5 teams through the CL campaign you end up playing 2 or 3 very good teams on averages one in the GS and one or two in the Knockouts. So when you compare those two it is quite evident that your going to face more competitive teams in the EPL in a season of football.
No offense, but look at United's CL campaign it might as well have been the Europa League campaign. The group was none existent and the R16 tie is basically another EL knockout round.
The false notion that the CL is the true proving ground for players to see if they cut it at the "highest level" just seemed silly to me, because when you look at it realistically it is far from anywhere close to being a barometer for quality. In the EPL each and every season you know you will have to play Tottenham, Chelsea, Arsenal, Liverpool, MU, and MC twice so those are 10 insanely difficult matches you have to play in if your on one of those teams. Where as in the CL, in the group stages you end up with 1 very good team and sometimes potentially a 2nd good team if you are in a Group of Death. So for the majority of the teams they end up having to to play 2 matches of real quality and the rest are 2nd tier matches. Once in the knockouts you again either end up with a very good team or another 2nd tier team and it goes like that until the SF's and Final. You simply don't compete regularly enough with top teams in the CL for it to be some sort of barometer.
In the best case scenario of a team facing very good teams in the CL from start to actually winning the CL it would be a maximum of 6 teams(2 in GS, 1 R16, 1 QF, 1 SF, 1 Final) in the worse case scenario it would be 2 teams(0 in GS, 0 R16, 0 QF, 1 SF, 1 Final) similarly to Monaco last season had they beaten Juventus. For the very large majority of teams bar the elite 3 to 5 teams through the CL campaign you end up playing 2 or 3 very good teams on averages one in the GS and one or two in the Knockouts. So when you compare those two it is quite evident that your going to face more competitive teams in the EPL in a season of football.
No offense, but look at United's CL campaign it might as well have been the Europa League campaign. The group was none existent and the R16 tie is basically another EL knockout round.
There's a reason all the top clubs in the world have won their league titles many many more times than the EC/CL. The CL is much much harder to win because the teams in it are better.
Fun Fact: In 9 out of Real Madrid's 12 European Cups, they did not win the league in the same season.
They don't give a toss though.
The league qualifies you for CL therefore it's more prestigious no?
CL is more prestigious in terms of how people view it overall.
Like a pretentious hipster I'd rather win the PL if it was one or the other. In general, leagues are a better measure of who is the best compared to cup comps. Two-legged cup competitions do narrow it down considerably compared to one-off ties like the FA Cup or World Cup when it comes to international football, but still it's not quite there in terms of eradicating fluky/undeserved wins. Plus, well I don't really care what the rest of Europe/the world thinks of us.
Champs league also has this weird thing where you no longer get the privilege of seeing some talent that only the in-the-know's knew about like it used to have in it's early days. At the same time it's not familiar enough to have any Europe-wide bitter rivalries/feuds going on. Needs to have one or the other for me to be top dog. It's just not sexy.
Like a pretentious hipster I'd rather win the PL if it was one or the other. In general, leagues are a better measure of who is the best compared to cup comps. Two-legged cup competitions do narrow it down considerably compared to one-off ties like the FA Cup or World Cup when it comes to international football, but still it's not quite there in terms of eradicating fluky/undeserved wins. Plus, well I don't really care what the rest of Europe/the world thinks of us.
Champs league also has this weird thing where you no longer get the privilege of seeing some talent that only the in-the-know's knew about like it used to have in it's early days. At the same time it's not familiar enough to have any Europe-wide bitter rivalries/feuds going on. Needs to have one or the other for me to be top dog. It's just not sexy.
The CL does get significantly harder as you progress and more difficult to win to the last stages, but going through the group stages and first knockout rounds very often is a cake walk for good teams offering very little challenge to them. By the time you win the CL you might have had to play 4 maybe 6 difficult matches vs. good opponents where teams quality could be gauged. It is a very small sample of similar elite quality teams competing vs. each other to actually determine who is better. The competition is simply way to diluted in its current state, if they reduced it to 16 teams and forced the better teams to play each other more we could get a much better picture of where teams stand similarly to what UEFA did with the Nations League grouping the best with the best and then seeing who the best really is.